[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <526AC4F3.1020404@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:22:27 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: RFP: Fixing "-ga -ag -g fp -g dwarf" was Re: [PATCHSET 0/8] perf
tools: Fix scalability problem on callchain merging (v5)
On 10/25/13 1:09 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> I think I did with the second follow up patch: -ga -ag -g fp -g
>>> dwarf should all work properly with fp the default for -g.
>
>> Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
>
> Can I have this one submitted?
>
> I guess I found it but it was malformed, didn't apply.
Upon further review, Jiri was correct: that patch handles some of the
old cases fine, but did not handle others. ie., it just moved the bad
syntax problem around.
Looks like the parse-options code does not handle optional arguments.
e.g., -g defaults to 'fp' if no argument is given. With the following
permutations:
-gfoo
-g foo
-g -- foo
the parsing code gets confused on what 'foo' is. It needs some logic for
callbacks to say 'nope, not my argument' and the option parsing checks
for an alternative interpretation (e.g., "-gfoo" ?= "-f -o -o" or in the
case of '-g foo' it means -g is the end of the arguments and foo is the
first one not processed -- ie., the workload to run).
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists